D&D General D&D, magic, and the mundane medieval

[pemerton]

I'd posit that they are impossible to extrapolate, and take a great deal of knowledge and insight to even partially understand in retrospect.

Sure, I'm happy to go with impossible, which certainly entails "not easy" which was my more muted characterisation.

One interesting consideration from my point of view is this: the increasing labour productivity that is typical of "modernity" has resulted from "technicalisation", the sustained application of human knowledge and knowledge creation to the development of more powerful means of production. A key theme in classic sociology is that this process brings with it changes in belief systems and associated social orders.

If labour productivity was achieved via the obscurantism of magic, then how would ideas and social organisation differ from their real world character?

I don't think it's possible to know, or even to extrapolate. But it can be interesting to make it up!

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The DMG unequivocally states that the DEFAULT assumption is that spellcasters are rare. Then it gives advice on different ways to handle magic. The default of D&D is to have rare spellcasters, though. So while yes, the DM can build off of that default and change spellcasters to be more common, if he doesn't, they aren't. No change = default.

Good grief who cares? Some introductory text in the dm advice book’s section on how magic works in different worlds doesn’t matter. Even what the game’s “default” is or isn’t does not matter in any way.
Now, can you explain why you think this line of argument is even relevant are a response to an argument that the worldbuilding assumptions of very-rare-magic worlds don’t even make internal sense?

Spellbooks are not written in languages. They are written in some sort of magical runes or something. We know this because wizards without a roll or spell can copy a spell out of literally every spellbook they find, no matter where in the world, or even found on another world in another universe. That would not be possible if they had to be able to read a language that they don't know.

Goodness gracious, Max. I know exactly how spell books work. That is literally the point of what you quoted.

Though if we are being pedantic, and I’d rather we not be, spellbook a are written in an idiosyncratic semi-cypher, which is why you have to rewrite spells in your own idiosyncratic methodology in order to copy them.

Not that it matters, because the entire point of what you quoted was making a statement about how Spellcasting doesn’t work under the rules!

Prove that it's cheesy. Casters needing to be born with a rare talent for magic is a common trope in fantasy and in D&D.

what!? Prove a subjective value judgement!? What on earth are you even talking about?

DMG page 9 under Core Assumptions about the game world.

"The World Is Magical. Practitioners of magic are relatively few in number, but they leave evidence of their craft everywhere."

DMG page 23 under Magic in Your World.

"What normal folk know of magic depends on where they live and whether they know characters who practice magic. Citizens of an isolated hamlet might not have seen true magic used for generations and speak in whispers of the strange powers of the old hermit living in the nearby woods."

If magic were as common as you make it out to be, that bolded part would not be true.

I’m not making anything out to be anything, in fact. I’m challenging the assertion of others that it makes perfect sense to have it be extremely rare.

DMG page 24 under the same heading.

"Consider these questions when fitting magic into your world: Is some magic common? Is some socially unacceptable? Which magic is rare?"

The reason you have to ask yourself if some magic is common, is because by default it isn't.

Thank you. It was…somewhat aggravating to have the claim repeated without a quotation or at least page reference.

Let’s explore the rest of the section of that chapter you’re quoting, however.

Now, I can’t quote pages, because DDB inexplicably doesn’t list them so that you can search by them or reference them again in a physical book, and I only own physical copies of books as collection items.

However, I can just take screencaps.

Okay, so what is stated “unequivocally” here is actually that the rarity of magic is variable. That’s what “most” means.

And then it describes a world where magic isn’t really even actually rare, it’s just…inexplicably concentrated in places where people gather, and never proliferates…because reasons.

The section also switches from speaking of generic hamlets with no specified world to using a counter-example of the Forgotten Realms, where there are mages guilds.

This presents a multiverse without a default. The closest it comes to a default is a very vague “most worlds”, which inherently means not all. Not “nearly every” or the “overwhelming majority”, just “most”.

The only really strong default is that the book assumes every world has some magic. Everything else varies.

None of which makes the worldbuilding sections of the dmg particularly helpful in a discussion about what makes sense in a D&D world. Especially compared to the options in the book and what their presence implies about worlds in which they exist.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I don't think it's possible to know, or even to extrapolate. But it can be interesting to make it up!

Indeed. But "making it up" is the standard for a D&D setting. The issue is making an authentically historical D&D setting is that real history had no real magic (and no real dragons or invincible warriors either). So, if you want to make an authentic historical D&D setting you have no choice but to rule magic (and other D&Disms) out of the equation. At least for the part of the world that isn't the player characters.

It's perfectly reasonable to want to make a world where everybody plays by the same rules, but in that case you will always end up with something like Eberron, and not remotely like anything historical.

 

[humble minion]

There's another thing that people tend to leave off. World population. My quickie look through Google pegs the world population during 1200 AD at about 500 (ish) million. Total. That's it. Most of the world would be unbelievably empty (at least of humans anyway).

Yet, we look at these fantasy settings where there's major population centers all over the place. And, let's posit for a moment that the humanoid population of the world is similar to Earth's at the time - so, again about 4-500 milion. What percentage of that would be human, what percentage humanoid? Elves, dwarves, etc. Given medieval food production levels, you can't have a much bigger population.

The point being, the fantasy worlds that we have are MUCH too big and far too populated. The Sword Coast, for example, has several major cities -with populations in the hundreds of thousands. It makes basically no sense.

I'm not so sure. Taking your numbers of a global population of ~500 million, that's about 1/14th of earth's current population. Even just doing a flat divide-by-14 globally, that'd still leave the USA with 7-8 cities of population of over 100k, while India would have 25, China would have over 50, and even tiny little Britain would have 3.

And yeah, a less modern civilisation would have less urban concentration I'm sure, but on the other hand, we've established that magic can significantly increase food production output per laborer, even if it's routinely used on only 1 in ten farms or something.

I think we sometimes underestimate the size of pre-modern cities. Even BCE, you had Rome, Alexandria, Babylon, Carthage, Thebes etc who had populations well into the hundred thousands or approaching a million at various times, and that's not even counting multiple Chinese cities. As you progress into the middle ages, you get even more. Constantinople, Baghdad, Ctesiphon. And into the Renaissance period, which is where full-plate-and-rapiers D&D often falls, you have lots and lots springing up in Europe.

 

[Cadence]

I'm not sure why one even needs magic to change everything.

By RAW in 5e, a typical child with a 6 STR can carry 10 gallons of water (or similar weight of whatever) doing 15 minute miles for eight hours a day with no chaffing or blisters. Boots never wear down - but I'm not sure why one even worries about footwear - swords and plows never grow dull, and horses never throw their shoes. Soldiers are interpreted by many on here as never suffering any wounds until the last one, and are able to continuously keep fighting for over a dozen hours a day for days on end. Similarly no one wounded in a mundane way need worry about infection. Etc...

As an alternative, I view the rules as seeing the world through a filter designed to give ease of play for the things the characters commonly do and not being concerned with their application to the rest of time. And so, it feels like cantrip spamming is another of those things.

Is a lot of the dissonance in thinking about 5e campaign worlds because the classic D&D campaign still harkens back to 1e and 2e when there were no cantrips and no one has to think about magic happening to the extent of later editions?

Anyway, if I were put in charge of the rules I might limit the number of cantrips per short rest even for PCs (prof bonus? prof bonus + level? who knows).

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I'm not sure why one even needs magic to change everything.

You don't need magic. There are a million randomly flapping butterfly wings that could have made history look very different. But you can't have magic and expect societies that look remotely like anything in real world history.

 

[Cadence]

You don't need magic. There are a million randomly flapping butterfly wings that could have made history look very different. But you can't have magic and expect societies that look remotely like anything in real world history.

When was the magic developed, how common and easy to use is it, what can it do, what do the masses think of it, and what did the people think of using it for?

Certainly once it is discovered and becomes widely useable things feel like they would have to start diverging greatly.

In real life was the wheel much more useful in some places than others? Why did gunpowder not find quicker refined application in death dealing? Why did the stirrup take so long to invent? Why is modern medicine still not practiced everywhere, or even accepted by those who have easy access to it? Why haven't nuclear discoveries done much beyond making sure the few biggest countries don't fight each other directly on the battlefield?

In the Lord Darcy books magic is found pretty late in the course of human affairs, for example, and so the world isn't unrecognizable. What if magic requires the invention of something like differential calculus or discovery of quantum mechanics to unlock?

 

[Oofta]

The effect of magic and various monsters, gods, etc. would be so absolutely transformative that if you want to keep quasi-medieval trappings it's best not to think too hard about it.

For example, why would walled fortifications be a thing in which so many threats can fly, burrow, leap, teleport or just utterly annihilate them in an instant?

I assume that for every tactic there is a counter tactic. Walled fortification? How many flying/burrowing creatures are there? I sometimes describe the defenses of my cities having specialized ballista on gimbals designed to hurl weighted nets to take down flying creatures. Other have gryphon riders or simply an alliance with a good aligned dragon who comes to their aid. That red dragon is going to think twice about attacking a city when it's being shot at by dozens of archers, dodging anti-dragon nets and fighting off that silver dragon.

Burrowing creatures are different which is why I rarely have monsters that can burrow through stone. I assume that creatures like bullettes that can burrow can't go through stone and have to be fairly close to the surface. But it also assumes a level of control over these creatures. Attacking a city would still likely be deadly and I would assume that most (like real modern day predators) tend to avoid cities because they've learned it doesn't end well.

Why would any anyone ever die of disease with all the remedies available? Why would anyone starve?

People still die of old age and in accidents. Short of heal (6th level spell) or a paladin's cure disease I can't think of anything that cures disease. I do assume in my world that there is the equivalent of magical antibiotics and similar level of healing, but few people have access to that 11th level cleric and paladins are not exactly a dime a dozen. How many druids do you have running around casting goodberry to ensure no one starves?

Every caster capable of casting "Magnificent Mansion" would quit adventuring and make a fortune offering luxury accommodations with all the benefits. And that's just one option. Hell, "mending" alone would revolutionize a medieval world (or the modern one!).

Magnificent Mansion is a 7th level spell. If that 13th level wizard wants to set up a hotel and cast it every day, go for it. The number of 13th level casters are exceedingly rare and the mansion isn't really all that large. You try setting up a luxury hotel with the limitations for more than a dozen guests or so, even with a dozen guests it's going to be pretty crowded with barely enough area for rooms, related facilities and common dining area. Banquets of course could be more profitable so maybe wedding receptions for the wealthy?

Kind of a fun idea actually, one I might steal, but hardly transformative.

Mending can only repair minor tears and cracks. If becoming a wizard is the equivalent of getting a doctorate that's an expensive education to become a tailor.

No, it's best to not consider this aspect of the setting too deeply.

Or ... magic is just part of the world but it only has minor relatively cosmetic affects in most cases. Perhaps there is less child mortality because the hedge witch has poultices and remedies that can actually help, even if it doesn't guarantee a cure. Childbirth is safer because of a chant the midwife sings that eases the process, people heal more quickly from wounds than we do without even realizing that there's magic involved.

There can be many small effects of magic that would actually make the world more like the vision most people have of their pseudo-medieval world than what the actual medieval world would be like.

 

[Oofta]

Good grief who cares? Some introductory text in the dm advice book’s section on how magic works in different worlds doesn’t matter. Even what the game’s “default” is or isn’t does not matter in any way.
Now, can you explain why you think this line of argument is even relevant are a response to an argument that the worldbuilding assumptions of very-rare-magic worlds don’t even make internal sense?


Goodness gracious, Max. I know exactly how spell books work. That is literally the point of what you quoted.

Though if we are being pedantic, and I’d rather we not be, spellbook a are written in an idiosyncratic semi-cypher, which is why you have to rewrite spells in your own idiosyncratic methodology in order to copy them.

Not that it matters, because the entire point of what you quoted was making a statement about how Spellcasting doesn’t work under the rules!

what!? Prove a subjective value judgement!? What on earth are you even talking about?

I’m not making anything out to be anything, in fact. I’m challenging the assertion of others that it makes perfect sense to have it be extremely rare.

Thank you. It was…somewhat aggravating to have the claim repeated without a quotation or at least page reference.

Let’s explore the rest of the section of that chapter you’re quoting, however.

Now, I can’t quote pages, because DDB inexplicably doesn’t list them so that you can search by them or reference them again in a physical book, and I only own physical copies of books as collection items.

However, I can just take screencaps.

View attachment 263951

Okay, so what is stated “unequivocally” here is actually that the rarity of magic is variable. That’s what “most” means.

And then it describes a world where magic isn’t really even actually rare, it’s just…inexplicably concentrated in places where people gather, and never proliferates…because reasons.

The section also switches from speaking of generic hamlets with no specified world to using a counter-example of the Forgotten Realms, where there are mages guilds.

View attachment 263952

This presents a multiverse without a default. The closest it comes to a default is a very vague “most worlds”, which inherently means not all. Not “nearly every” or the “overwhelming majority”, just “most”.

The only really strong default is that the book assumes every world has some magic. Everything else varies.

None of which makes the worldbuilding sections of the dmg particularly helpful in a discussion about what makes sense in a D&D world. Especially compared to the options in the book and what their presence implies about worlds in which they exist.

Wait ... weren't you just arguing that you were following the rules in the book which meant that individual campaigns have no bearing? But then when someone points out actual rules text that says that the default assumption that magic is rare you respond with "But individual campaign worlds can have a lot of magic"?

The level of magic is going to vary from campaign world to campaign world. In my campaign world there's a lot of very low level barely noticeable magic but high level magic is relatively rare. How 'bout we all just say that we should do what makes sense for the worlds we build?

 

[Maxperson]

Good grief who cares? Some introductory text in the dm advice book’s section on how magic works in different worlds doesn’t matter. Even what the game’s “default” is or isn’t does not matter in any way.

It matters as a response to people who say that in D&D spellcasters are not rare. They might not be rare in their games, but by default they are. It matters as a clarification to how the game is set up, not as some of prescriptive thing DMs are supposed to follow.

Now, can you explain why you think this line of argument is even relevant are a response to an argument that the worldbuilding assumptions of very-rare-magic worlds don’t even make internal sense?

Because it does make sense. We see a lot of magic around, because magic endures for thousands or even tens of thousands of years. Over that period of time even rare spellcasters will leave a large footprint of magic on the setting.

what!? Prove a subjective value judgement!? What on earth are you even talking about?

Sorry. I was(still am) tired and trying to be a bit humorous.

Thank you. It was…somewhat aggravating to have the claim repeated without a quotation or at least page reference.

Okay, so what is stated “unequivocally” here is actually that the rarity of magic is variable. That’s what “most” means.

Yes of course. That's why I've been saying that the DM can alter the default assumption if he wants to. Spellcasters aren't always rare, but the default is for them to be.

And then it describes a world where magic isn’t really even actually rare, it’s just…inexplicably concentrated in places where people gather, and never proliferates…because reasons.

Yes. But I've not been saying magic is rare. I've been saying magic is pretty common because the rare spellcasters have left a lot of it around the world over time. It's spellcasters, not magic, that are rare by default.

The section also switches from speaking of generic hamlets with no specified world to using a counter-example of the Forgotten Realms, where there are mages guilds.

A guild can be 5 guys in robes sitting around a fire in their tower swapping tales and spells that they've discovered in some ruin or other.

This presents a multiverse without a default. The closest it comes to a default is a very vague “most worlds”, which inherently means not all. Not “nearly every” or the “overwhelming majority”, just “most”.

It doesn't present a multiverse without a default. It presents a multiverse with a default, but then provides options and suggestions for how to change the default if the DM wants, because not all universes follow the multiversal default.

None of which makes the worldbuilding sections of the dmg particularly helpful in a discussion about what makes sense in a D&D world. Especially compared to the options in the book and what their presence implies about worlds in which they exist.

This I agree with. It makes perfect sense to have spellcasters be rare, common or somewhere in-between. The prolific amount of magic in the world can be explained by all three.